By the way, that document is based on real use cases. For example, my
last project was a Windows service, and I kept saying to myself "I wish
I had an entity engine jar" because I needed a database-agnostic data store.
-Adrian
On 5/4/2011 11:50 AM, David E Jones wrote:
Could you be more spec
Honestly I just read the document.
My +1 is only because I think Adrian can be a good host to make this
framework discussion continue.
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 11:50 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
> Could you be more specific? Are you saying that you agree with every part of
> what Adrian proposed in
Could you be more specific? Are you saying that you agree with every part of
what Adrian proposed in his document?
For a reminder, it is this document I'm referring to (and that this thread was
originally about):
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Another+Framework+Vision
-D
+1 to Adrian.
On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 10:46 -0700, David E Jones wrote:
> Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on
> Adrian's framework ideas?
>
> -David
Back to the original purpose of this thread, does anyone have any feedback on
Adrian's framework ideas?
-David
From: "Anil Patel"
Jacques,
I see that you mentioned few names and mine was in there as well, I am not
feeling any bad or such. But wanted to say something.
Its not that I don't have time to contribute to Ofbiz. There is different problem, There has been way too many difficult
interaction on
Jacques,
I see that you mentioned few names and mine was in there as well, I am not
feeling any bad or such. But wanted to say something.
Its not that I don't have time to contribute to Ofbiz. There is different
problem, There has been way too many difficult interaction on email lists, Also
lo
From: "David E Jones"
On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "David E Jones"
On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh
or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need
to
rise to the l
On May 3, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> From: "David E Jones"
>> On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it
harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need to
rise to the level of
From: "David E Jones"
On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Is that harsh and rude? Yep. Do I care any more? Nope. Those who call it harsh or rude or unfair... they are the ones who need
to
rise to the level of quality expected instead of asking me to compromise. I'm
done with th
On May 3, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> First I appreciate you took the time to put your thoughts on the table. I'm
> not sure an answer was waited, but here we go.
>
> From: "David E Jones"
>> Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't rev
Short but accurate, as ever...
Jacques
From: "Jacopo Cappellato"
On May 3, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
... Though I still believe it's good to get new ideas and especially fixing patches, since you, and now Scott, stopped to review
things,
you have certainly noticed that I commi
On May 3, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> ... Though I still believe it's good to get new ideas and especially fixing
> patches, since you, and now Scott, stopped to review things,
> you have certainly noticed that I commit less. To name a few, for a while
> now, Andrew, Anil , Jacop
Hi David,
First I appreciate you took the time to put your thoughts on the table. I'm not
sure an answer was waited, but here we go.
From: "David E Jones"
Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't review and
push back hard enough on contributions. This
results in a
You're right - I forgot about that. Thanks!
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 4:38 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Some in the community participated in the design. I called for feedback here,
and some did, and others didn't.
I even did an initial design and waited about 10 months for feedback before
starting im
Some in the community participated in the design. I called for feedback here,
and some did, and others didn't.
I even did an initial design and waited about 10 months for feedback before
starting implementation. The opportunity was certainly there.
Even now if a really good bit of feedback com
Except it's missing the "community participating in the design" part. ;-)
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 4:30 PM, David E Jones wrote:
Good idea. Done.
-David
On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
We could limit commit access to the new framework.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wr
Good idea. Done.
-David
On May 2, 2011, at 4:05 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
> We could limit commit access to the new framework.
>
> -Adrian
>
> On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now
>> for it is that it would remove c
Jacques, I hate to say it, but perhaps the reason is you often don't review and
push back hard enough on contributions. This results in a higher than desirable
rate of problematic contributions making it into the project, but certainly
results in a more personable and agreeable human interactio
We could limit commit access to the new framework.
-Adrian
On 5/2/2011 2:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for
it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd
much rather use a framework that has on
I don't see the things as dark, but yes sometimes there are problems
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support,
frequently get attacked and almost always come
out with no result.
Regards
Scott
On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le
I've long since given up on reviewing any work, I would rarely get any support,
frequently get attacked and almost always come out with no result.
Regards
Scott
On 3/05/2011, at 9:47 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in
> some c
Reviews, test and peers control should be sufficient, but yes it seems in some cases it's not enough, especially when we don't get a
good consensus, and then gradually everybody let the things roll
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right
+1
Cheers,
Ruppert
On May 2, 2011, at 3:27 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for
> it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd
> much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling
I don't know much about Moqui, but the biggest motivator I have right now for
it is that it would remove control of the framework from this community. I'd
much rather use a framework that has one good architect controlling everything
than use something where poorly thought out code can be dumpe
hi Adrian,
I am not that keen on tech. However, it is obvious that the framework needs
to be improved. What I expect from the further improvement of ofbiz
framework are:
1) less dependency
2) less "re-invent the wheel", like scheduler, cache, CMS, etc
I can see Moqui do much better at this p
26 matches
Mail list logo
